Communal online encyclopedias represent one of the latest resources to be found on the Internet. They are in many respects like traditional printed encyclopedias collections of articles on various subjects. What is specific to these online encyclopedias, however, is that any Internet user can contribute a new article or make an editorial change in an existing one. As a result, the encyclopedia is authored by the whole community of Internet users. The idea might sound attractive, but the communal online encyclopedias have several important problems that make them much less valuable than traditional, printed encyclopedias.
First, contributors to a communal online encyclopedia often lack academic credentials, thereby making their contributions partially informed at best and downright inaccurate in many cases. Traditional encyclopedias are written by trained expertswho adhere to standards of academic rigor that nonspecialists cannot really achieve.
Second, even if the original entry in the online encyclopedia is correct, the communal nature of these online encyclopedias gives unscrupulous users and vandals or hackers the opportunity to fabricate, delete, and corrupt information in the encyclopedia. Once changes have been made to the original text, an unsuspecting user cannot tell the entry has been tampered with. None of this is possible with a traditional encyclopedia.
Third, the communal encyclopedias focus too frequently, and in too great a depth, on trivial and popular topics, which creates a false impression of what is important and what is not. A child doing research for a school project may discover that a major historical event receives as much attention in an online encyclopedia as, say, a single long-running television program. The traditional encyclopedia provides a considered view of what topics to include or exclude and contains a sense of proportion that online "democratic" communal encyclopedias do not.
The reading is on giving importance on traditional encyclopedia such as printed version by downgrading communal online encyclopedia. The lecturer states the great values of communal online encyclopedia. He provides three reasons to refute each of the reading claim.
First, the passage claims online encyclopedia is erroneous and unscrupulous. However, the professor denies this claim. She states to define online encyclopedia is erroneous is not a fair criticism because the mistake is easy to identify and emend. But, in traditional library the information is never been an accurate and there was no comprehensive reference both online and offline. And also it is been required a decade to identify in traditional libraries error.
Second, the reading states hacking is occurring in online encyclopedia. But, the lecturer refutes the statement. She discloses, there is a number of ways are available to protect online encyclopedia articles by launching reading format, by monitoring contents by a supervisor.
Thirdly, the reading asserts the online encyclopedia has a space problems. The professor found, the assertions is quite problematic. She represents that space is not an issue in online library because it provides verities of content and they are diversified in use.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 450, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'libraries'' or 'library's'?
Suggestion: libraries'; library's
...red a decade to identify in traditional libraries error. Second, the reading states ha...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 66, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'problem'?
Suggestion: problem
...rts the online encyclopedia has a space problems. The professor found, the assertions is...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, so, third, thirdly, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 12.0772626932 8% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 22.412803532 40% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1094.0 1373.03311258 80% => OK
No of words: 195.0 270.72406181 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.61025641026 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.73687570622 4.04702891845 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15940722975 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Unique words: 106.0 145.348785872 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.54358974359 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 359.1 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.2052058639 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.1428571429 110.228320801 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.9285714286 21.698381199 64% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.71428571429 7.06452816374 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.330495266585 0.272083759551 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121247331181 0.0996497079465 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100108157922 0.0662205650399 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215190971729 0.162205337803 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0520352634418 0.0443174109184 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 13.3589403974 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 41.36 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.67 12.2367328918 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.